Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to resolve a statutory noise nuisance from her neighbour. The Council is not at fault. It acted against Miss X’s neighbour following her original noise reports and considered a range of information when deciding not to take further action.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to resolve a statutory noise nuisance from her neighbour. She says this has impacted her mental health and quality of life. She wants the Council to resolve the nuisance and take action against her neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided. I have also considered information provided by the Council.
5. Miss X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Statutory nuisances

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ such as noise from premises. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
7. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits.
8. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
9. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
10. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Abatement notices

11. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
12. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

13. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.

What happened

14. Miss X complained to the Council about noise from her neighbour’s property. Miss X recorded the noise on the Council’s noise recording app, and the Council carried out site visits.
15. In March 2023 the Council issued Miss X’s neighbour with an abatement notice. In June 2023 the Council reported witnessing a breach of the abatement notice and applied to the court to seize the neighbour’s equipment. The Court granted a warrant to abate the noise, and the Council seized the neighbour’s equipment in September 2023.
16. The Council’s records show a decrease in Miss X’s reports of noise nuisance between September 2023 and January 2024, with only two reports of noise. In January 2024 Miss X reported an increase in the noise and the Council reopened the case. Miss X again made noise recordings. The Council’s records show the volume on the noise recordings was lower than before it seized the neighbour’s equipment.
17. The Council sent a warning letter to Miss X’s neighbour. It carried out eight visits in March and April 2024 and reported no noise breaches. Miss X told the Council her neighbour had CCTV and could see when its officers were visiting.
18. In April 2024 the Council wrote to Miss X. It said it had not witnessed any further breaches. It said it could not stop Miss X’s neighbour having CCTV and would carry out further visits before deciding on the next course of action. Miss X complained to the Council. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in June 2024. It reiterated the action it had taken so far. It said it needed to witness the noise over a six-month period to prosecute her neighbour and had not witnessed any breaches in 2024. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.
19. The Council visited five more time in July 2024. While it witnessed some noise it did not consider it to be at a level that would breach the abatement notice. The Council did not believe the case met the evidence requirements for a successful prosecution. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted there remained issues between Miss X and her neighbour and said it would reopen the case.

My findings

20. Following Miss X’s original reports of noise nuisance, the Council issued an abatement notice and seized equipment when it considered Miss X’s neighbour had breached this notice. The Council is not at fault.
21. When Miss X reported further noise in January 2024 the Council reopened the case. It considered new noise recordings, alongside in person visits. While it witnessed some noise it did not consider the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance or a breach of its abatement notice. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
22. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether an individual disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
23. The Council considered a range of information, including noise recordings, and in person visits when deciding it could not take further action. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
24. It is open to Miss X to take her own action against her neighbour under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. The Council has also said it will reopen the case and consider new information when deciding whether to take further action.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation and found the Council not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman